As a part of Millennials, I should admit that I spend lots of time on devices. And, I know that it is not a good habit. we need to play more outside. just having a walk, going museums, or having a coffee with your friends. This is a real life. Anyway, Sometimes it is inevitable to avoid using devices. There are some methods to protect better your eyes according to the article from digitaltrends.com. Here you go.

1. Maintain a comfortable working distance at the computer (close to arm’s length from the screen) and avoid hunching closer and closer.2. When using a phone keep the screen as far away from your eyes as comfortably possible — the greater the distance your phone is from your eye, the less eye strain it is likely to cause — provided the print size and images are large enough for comfortable viewing.3. Every 20 minutes, take a 20-second break and look off into the distance — at something 20 feet away. This is called the “20-20-20 rule” by many eye care providers, and it relaxes the focusing muscle inside the eye, relaxes the muscles outside the eyes that converge the eyes (points them inward to stay aligned on near objects), and stimulates blinking to remoisten the surface of the eyes — all comforting things!4. Get an eye exam. Even minor problems with your eyesight can increase your risk for digital eye strain. Also, ask your eye care professional about the best type of glasses for your digital viewing needs. You might benefit from eyewear specifically prescribed for computer or other digital device use.5. Ask your eye care provider about glasses that block blue light. There are a number of brands of eyeglass lenses and coatings that can reduce your exposure to HEV light when using digital devices.6. Make sure your eyeglass lenses (if you need them) have an anti-reflective (AR) coating. Eliminating reflections from your lenses can increase viewing comfort and reduce eye strain.7. Go outside and play more!

It is unfortunate that many people are not contect to their jobs. We were supposed to get a degree in order to find a career that we feel happy with. In the end, it is important to follow what you like. Nobody would know it except you.

Some new research about workplace behavior caught my attention recently. It highlights — by omission — the important link between an organization’s management culture and the psychological experience of working within it. That’s a link that needs to be examined, but often isn’t; and this study illustrates that gap. It found that people who report feeling emotionally engaged and connected with their work and their organizations also experience greater psychological well-being.

That finding may sound obvious, though it’s always good to have empirical data confirm the obvious. In this case, it shows that if you’re among the fortunate ones who feel engaged and positive about your work and management, you’re likely to experience a greater sense of wellbeing. The problem is, most people aren’t so fortunate, as surveys repeatedly show. But this study does expose important questions, raised by its own findings:

What, exactly, promotes a sense of emotional connection with your work to begin with? And how might that increase your overall sense of well-being?

The lead author, Thomas Clausen, suggests(link is external) that efforts to increase emotional connection with work may lead to a happier, healthier workforce. Of course. That makes good sense, and most companies would likely agree. The problem is that a positive sense of connection with work requires several conditions and factors that organizational leadership often fails to recognize or address.

Among the most important are, in my view:

Does senior leadership promote a positive work culture, in which workers are valued and provided opportunities for continued learning and development?

Is diversity encouraged and valued in practice, not just in company mission statements?

Is there a workaholic and/or sexist management culture permeating the organization?

In Dec of 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen separate countries. Its collapse was by the west as a victory for freedom, a triumph of democracy over totalitarianism, and evidence of superiority of capitalism over socialism. It was the end of the Cold War.

After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the newly formed government developed a philosophy of socialism with the eventual and gradual transition to Communism. The state which the Bolsheviks created was intended to overcome national differences. It was to create one monolithic state based on a centralized economical and political system. This state, which was built on a Communist ideology, was eventually transformed into a totalitarian state, in which the Communist leadership had complete control over the country.

This project of creating a unified, centralized socialist state proved problematic for several reasons. 1) the Soviets underestimated the degree to which the non-Russian ethnic groups in the country would resist assimilation into a Russianized State.2) their economic planning failed to meet the needs of the State, which was caught up in a vicious arms race with the US. This led to a gradual economic decline. 3) Finally, the ideology of Communism, which the Soviet Government worked to instill in the hearts and minds of its population, never took firm root, and eventually lost whatever influence it had originally carried.

“A new moral atmosphere is taking shape in the country,” Gorbachev told the Central Committee at the January 1987 meeting where he declared glasnost — openness — and democratization to be the foundation of his perestroika, or restructuring, of Soviet society. “A reappraisal of values and their creative rethinking is under way.” Later, recalling his feeling that “we couldn’t go on like that any longer, and we had to change life radically, break away from the past malpractices,” he called it his “moral position.”

Indeed, the Soviet Union in 1985 possessed much of the same natural and human resources that it had 10 years before. Certainly, the standard of living was much lower than in most of Eastern Europe, let alone the West. Shortages, food rationing, long lines in stores, and acute poverty were endemic. But the Soviet Union had known far greater calamities and coped without sacrificing an iota of the state’s grip on society and economy, much less surrendering it.

The same lackadaisical but hardly catastrophic pattern continued through 1989. Budget deficits, which since the French Revolution have been considered among the prominent portents of a coming revolutionary crisis

oil was more expensive in the world markets in 1985 than in 1972, and only one-third lower than throughout the 1970s. And at the same time, Soviet incomes increased more than 2 percent in 1985, and inflation-adjusted wages continued to rise in the next five years through 1990 at an average of over 7 percent.

the previous decade was correctly judged to amount “to the realization of all major Soviet military and diplomatic desiderata,” as American historian and diplomat Stephen Sestanovich has written. Of course, Afghanistan increasingly looked like a long war, but for a 5-million-strong Soviet military force the losses there were negligible. Indeed, though the enormous financial burden of maintaining an empire was to become a major issue in the post-1987 debates, the cost of the Afghan war itself was hardly crushing: Estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion in 1985, it was an insignificant portion of the Soviet GDP.

Most of what they said publicly in the early days of perestroika now seems no more than an expression of their anguish over the spiritual decline and corrosive effects of the Stalinist past.

dy at the end of 1989, the first representative national public opinion survey found overwhelming support for competitive elections and the legalization of parties other than the Soviet Communist Party — after four generations under a one-party dictatorship and with independent parties still illegal. By mid-1990, more than half those surveyed in a Russian region agreed that “a healthy economy” was more likely if “the government allows individuals to do as they wish.” Six months later, an all-Russia poll found 56 percent supporting a rapid or gradual transition to a market economy. Another year passed, and the share of the pro-market respondents increased to 64 percent.

DELVING INTO THE causes of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville famously noted that regimes overthrown in revolutions tend to be less repressive than the ones preceding them. Why? Because, de Tocqueville surmised, though people “may suffer less,” their “sensibility is exacerbated.”

As usual, Tocqueville was onto something hugely important. From the Founding Fathers to the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, revolutionaries have fought under essentially the same banner: advancement of human dignity. It is in the search for dignity through liberty and citizenship that glasnost’s subversive sensibility lives —

“The Almighty provided us with such a powerful sense of dignity that we cannot tolerate the denial of our inalienable rights and freedoms, no matter what real or supposed benefits are provided by ‘stable’ authoritarian regimes,” the president of Kyrgyzstan,Roza Otunbayeva, wrote this March. “It is the magic of people, young and old, men and women of different religions and political beliefs, who come together in city squares and announce that enough is enough.”

The Russian moral renaissance was thwarted by the atomization and mistrust bred by 70 years of totalitarianism. And though Gorbachev and Yeltsin dismantled an empire, the legacy of imperial thinking for millions of Russians has since made them receptive to neo-authoritarian Putinism, with its propaganda leitmotifs of “hostile encirclement” and “Russia rising off its knees.” Moreover, the enormous national tragedy (and national guilt) of Stalinism has never been fully explored and atoned for, corrupting the entire moral enterprise, just as the glasnost troubadours so passionately warned.

By the time of 1985 rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader, the country was in a situation of severe stagnation, with deep economic and political problems which sorely needed to be addressed and overcome. Gorbachev introduced a two-tiered policy of reform. One was freedom of speech. Another was economic reform known as perestroika or rebuilding. What he did not expect was the unleashing emotions and political feelings that had been pent up for decades, which proved to be extremely powerful when brought out into the open. The Soviet people consequently used their newly allotted freedom of speech to criticize Gorbachev for his failure to improve the economy.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union began on the peripheries, in the non-Russian areas. The first region to produce mass, organized dissent was the Baltic region, where, in 1987, the government of Estonia demanded autonomy. This move was later followed by similar moves in Lithuania and Latvia, the other two Baltic republics.

After the initiative from Estonia, similar movements sprang up all over the former Soviet Union. In the South of the Soviet Union, a movement developed inside the Armenian-populated autonomous region in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Gorbachev government refused to allow the population to secede, and the situation developed into a violent territorial dispute, eventually degenerating into an all-out war which continues unabated until the present day.

The nationalist movement emerged in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Central Asian republics. On August 19 of 1991, a group of hard-line Communists organized a coup d’etat. They kidnapped Gorbachev, and then they announced on state television that Gorbachev was very ill and would no longer be able to govern. However, the coup d’etat failed as they realized that without the cooperation of the military, they did not have the power to overcome the entire population of the country.

It was not all failure thought. Only a few months later, the Soviet Union completely collapsed. Both the government and the people realized that there was no way to turn back the clock. The massive demonstrations of the August days had demonstrated that the population would accept nothing less than democracy. On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned. A new entity was formed. It was called the “Commonwealth of Independent Republics”, and was composed of most of the independent countries of the former Soviet Union. The member countries had complete political independence, but they were just linked to other Commonwealth countries by economic, and in some cases by military ties.

Now it was time for them to develop their economies, reorganize their political systems, and in many cases, settle bitter territorial disputes.

Now that the Soviet Union, with its centralized political and economic system, has ceased to exist, the fifteen newly formed independent countries which emerged in its aftermath are faced with an overwhelming task. They must develop their economies, reorganize their political systems, and, in many cases, settle bitter territorial disputes. A number of wars have developed on the peripheries of the former Soviet Union. Additionally, the entire region is suffering a period of severe economic hardship. However, despite the many hardships facing the region, bold steps are being taken toward democratization, reorganization, and rebuilding in most of the countries of the former Soviet Union.

in Sept, 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany following Germany’s invasion of Poland.

After WWI, in 1919, Lloyd George of England and Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson from the US met to discuss. Germany had to sign the treaty based on Wilson’s 14 points and were not happy with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, Germany could not pay for the fee. It was a lot of money, and Germany was poor with a high inflation.

Hitler’s Actions

became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. In 1934, he increased the size of army, weapons, and start to build warships and created a German air force.

Although Britain and France were aware of Hitler’s actions, they were also worried about Communism and believed that a stronger Germany might help to prevent the spread of Communism to the West. Hitler made two important allies during 1936. First was through Axis Pact with Italy. Mussolini’s Italy. The second was called the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan.

In 1938, German troops marched into Austria to take the land back.

The results of the vote were fixed and shows that 99% of Austrian people wanted to be part of Germany. The Austrian leader asked Britain, France and Italy for aid. Hitler promised that it is to be the end of his expansionist aims and not wanting to risk war, the other countries did nothing.

However, six months later Hitler asked for a part of the land from Czechoslovakia. The prime minister of Britain met with Hitler three times during September 1938 to try to reach an agreement that would prevent war. The Munich Agreement stated that Hitler could have the region of Czechoslovakia but not to invade the rest of the country.

Soon he invited the rest of Czechoslovakia. Despite calls for help from Czechoslovak government, neither Britain nor France was prepared to take military action against Hitler.

Now the next destination for Hitler was Poland, and this time both Britain and France promised that they would take military action against Hitler if he invaded Poland. Finally, German troops invaded Poland in 1939 1st Sept.

Failure

In May 1937, Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain. He believed that the Treaty of Versailles had treated Germany badly and that there were a number of issues associated with the Treaty that needed to be put right. He felt that giving in to Hitler’s demands would prevent another war. The Policy by Chamberlain is called as the policy of Appeasement. The most notable example of appeasement was the Munich Agreement of September 1938.

The Munich Agreement signed by the leaders of Germany, Britain, France and Italy agreed that Sudetenland would be returned to Germany and that no further territorial claims would be made by Germany. The Czech government was not invited to the conference and protested about the loss of the Sudetenland. They felt that they had been betrayed by Britain and France with whom alliances had been made. However, the Munich Agreement was generally viewed as a triumph and an excellent example of securing peace through negotiation rather than war.

When Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, he broke the terms of the Munich Agreement. Although it was realised that the policy of appeasement had failed. Chamberlain was still not prepared to take the country to war over.

Failure of the League of Nations

The League of Nations was an international organisation set up in 1919 to help keep world peace. It was intended that all countries would be members of the League and that if there were disputes, it would be settled by negotiation rather than by force. but ultimately it failed.

in 1920s, the whole world was hit by a depression. A depression is when a country’s economy falls. Trade is reduced, business lose income, prices fall and unemployment rises.

Japan in 1931 was hit badly by the depression. People lost faith in the government and turned to the army to find a solution. The army invaded China where had rich minerals and resources. China appealed to the League for help. The Japanese government were told to order the army to leave it, but the Japanese army continued to invade China.

Italy invited Abyssinia. The Abyssinians did not have the strength to withstand an attack by Italy and appealed to the League of Nations for help.

Four reasons why the league of nations failed: Not all countries joined the League: Germany was not allowed to join and Russia was also excluded due to a growing fear of Communism. The League had no power.

The League had no power. The main weapon of the League was to ask member countries to stop trading with an aggressive country. but due to the depression in the late 1920s and as the country still could trade with nonmember countries, it really did not matter.

The League had no army: soldiers were to be supplied by member countries.

The League had no army. Unable to act quickly. (met only four times a year, and decision had to be agreed by all nations.)